Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPITTSBURGH – The G20 Summit that opens Thursday is unlikely to achieve much when it comes to restructuring the global economic order. That's good news for workers, farmers, consumers and citizens.
What's good about inaction on the part of the leaders of the world's wealthiest nations? While there is no question that a radical restructuring is needed, it must be the right restructuring.
In the midst of the nastiest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and with so many unaddressed social and environmental challenges weighing on the planet, the necessity of finding new ways of organizing and managing the economic affairs of nation states and global trading and regulatory regimes should be evident to even the most nearsighted neo-liberals.
But multinational bankers and corporatists that contributed so mightily to the current crisis are busy peddling more-of-the-same "solutions" that could actually make matters worse. For instance, one of the great debates going into this week's meeting of leaders from wealthy nations such as the U.S., China, Germany, Japan and Great Britain has been over how to develop an international framework for what the powers that be define as "sustainable development."
The thing to remember is that, in the world of the global economic elites, "sustainable" has a different meaning than in does at a Friends of the Earth rally or the local farmers' market.
The high fliers at the G-20 want to manage international trade and competition in a manner that keeps banks and corporations on steady growth trajectories – no matter what that means for working families, small farmers and the poor of the planet. In other words, they're talking about sustaining status-quo economics.
One of the prime debates going into the summit had to do with a plan to set up a new system to manage trade between countries that would have what the Financial Times describes as "a powerful enforcement mechanism… to fine or punish countries that built up the sort of large trade surpluses or deficits that contributed to global trade imbalances."
Reducing trade deficits, like those experienced by the United States since this country bought into the free-trade dogmas of the 1990s – via the North America Free Trade Agreement, our embrace of the World Trade Organization and the enactment for permanent most-favored-nation trading status for China – has great appeal.
But the big problem with NAFTA, the WTO and other existing schemes for managing regional and global trade is that they limit the sovereignty of nation states and thus undermine the ability of citizens to democratically define the direction of their national economies.
A new international program, established by the G20, to pressure countries with regard to trade surpluses and deficits would further erode democracy at the national level.
For this reason, G20 officials fretted on the eve of the summit that "no country would cede sovereignty on core economic decisions."
That means that the G20 won't produce that the "new world order" that many mandarins of the old economic order would have preferred.
Instead, what's likely to be agreed to is what British Prime Minister Gordon Brown describes as "a compact" that might develop what G20 negotiators imagine as "a process of annual peer review overseen by the International Monetary Fund, (which) would nudge countries into pursuing policies that (create) more balanced economic growth."
From a democracy standpoint, nudging is better than the surrender of sovereignty.
But it would be foolish to presume that peer review will, in and of itself, produce more balanced economic growth.
If the IMF uses traditional measures to determine access whether the economic growth of a particular country is sound, we're still in trouble.
This summit should be about establishing new standards for measuring growth, and for "nudging" countries to develop along lines that are genuinely sustainable.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy plans to propose that the G20 consider employing metrics that better measure the well-being of nations. Economic indicators, such as the gross domestic product (GDP) of a country would still be considered (along with trade surpluses and deficits), But quality-of-life indicators, including measures of social, democratic and environmental progress would also be considered in determining whether a country was advancing along sound and sustainable lines.
Nobel Prize-winning economic Joseph Stiglitz refers to "a balance sheet of society" in describing this broader notion of what should be measured.
"In many cases, the GDP statistics seem to suggest that the economy (of a country) is doing far better than most citizens' own perceptions," explains Stiglitz, who a key member of the international Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress that Sarkozy established with an eye toward developing broader measures of national progress. "(The) focus on GDP creates conflicts: political leaders are told to maximize it, but citizens also demand that attention be paid to enhancing security, reducing air, water and noise pollution, and so forth – all of which might lower economic growth. The fact that GDP may be a poor measure of well-being, or even of market activity, has, of course, long been recognized. But changes in society and the economy may have heightened the problems, at the same time that advances in economics and statistical techniques may have provided opportunities to improve our metrics."
Stiglitz and the team assembled by Sarkozy have proposed those improved metrics. The extent to which they are discussed and embraced by the G20 will go a long way toward determining whether this summit will play a role in shaping a genuinely sustainable global economy – one that serves all the world's people, not merely CEOs and speculators – or one more missed opportunity.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"But the big problem with NAFTA, the WTO and other existing schemes for managing regional and global trade is that they limit the sovereignty of nation states..."
Sounds familiar, Mr Nichols.
Like our friends on the Right's take on...
the United Nations, huh?
Posted by Mask at 09/23/2009 @ 9:25pm
NICHOLS: The high fliers at the G-20 want to manage international trade and competition in a manner that keeps banks and corporations on steady growth trajectories – no matter what that means for working families, small farmers and the poor of the planet. In other words, they're talking about sustaining status-quo economics.
Mr. Nichols, you are aware that in the past two decades, literally billions of people in places like China, India, Indonesia, the Philipines, Brazile, Columbia, etc...have escaped subsistence living?
The Inconvenient Truth is that abject poverty today is far, far below what they were and the Left had a big helping hand in reducing global poverty. I applaud you for that in all sincerity.
What you won't admit, is that you outsourced US jobs by strangling our low-tech industries with all sorts of "demand that attention be paid to enhancing security, reducing air, water and noise pollution, and so forth".
Like you, I like clean air and water "and so forth", but I know there are costs that aren't borne directly by me or you, but by many now-jobless suckers that vote for your party so you can indulge in feeling good about yoursel as an Eco-Star.
Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 9:26pm
as always, average people are literally locked out of these stupid summits. so, i say, people should try and force their way in, disrupt the talks, and raise hell.
what can (seriously) be accomplished when the wealthiest and most powerful individuals get together to try and change things?
Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:13pm
as always, average people are literally locked out of these stupid summits. so, i say, people should try and force their way in, disrupt the talks, and raise hell.
As usual Darlaloon provides a living contradiction to the basic premise of Darwin proving de-evolution to a more lower base form of development is real! She does provide ample illustration of the need for greater security everywhere!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/23/2009 @ 10:39pm
The nation does do a good job of "feeding" conspiracy theorist insatable appetites for fear and loathing of economic brainstorming and international cooperation!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/23/2009 @ 10:42pm
as always, average people are literally locked out of these stupid summits. so, i say, people should try and force their way in, disrupt the talks, and raise hell. what can (seriously) be accomplished when the wealthiest and most powerful individuals get together to try and change things? Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--weren't you just saying on another post that Obama should be given time, a chance to work and get things done?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/23/2009 @ 10:46pm
as always, average people are literally locked out of these stupid summits. so, i say, people should try and force their way in, disrupt the talks, and raise hell.
what can (seriously) be accomplished when the wealthiest and most powerful individuals get together to try and change things?
Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2009 @ 10:13pm
What agreements would "average people" have the authority to negotiate? Of course also, will the average person will feel right at home discussing trade policy with a Sarkozy or Hu Jintao from China on their recent move to internationalize the Yuan and it's effect on global markets?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 10:52pm
What you won't admit, is that you outsourced US jobs by strangling our low-tech industries with all sorts of "demand that attention be paid to enhancing security, reducing air, water and noise pollution, and so forth".
Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 9:26pm
not correct, happy.
it's all about rubber money and inflation.
a factory worker has not seen his standard of living improve in the last thirty years.
it's all about hiding inflation and greed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2009 @ 11:25pm
What agreements would "average people" have the authority to negotiate?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 10:52pm |
The global corporations don't want to negotiate. Why bother to negotiate when they can pay off a puppet dictator and take the resources they want.
Nigerians' water sources and land are being destroyed by oil drilling in the Niger Delta while 85% of oil revenues go to 1% of the population.
And when the Nigerians protested, they were gunned down by government goons in a Chevron helicopter.
Cheveron named an oil tanker after Condi Rice but they renamed it to avoid embarrassing Rice.
Posted by koroviev at 09/24/2009 @ 02:31am
Interesting dichotomy, isn't it?
On the environment or "peace-keeping missions"...The Left embraces "international organizations" and the Right loathes them....
on trade....the Right embraces "international organizations" and the Left loathes them!!!
Then you've got Larry/antisoc....who rejects "the international body", the United Nations, when it comes to Israel...
but says we must accept the authority of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS, a defunct "international body" when it comes to Israel!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 07:20am
... says we must accept the authority of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS, a defunct "international body" when it comes to Israel!
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 07:20am
The best international body, now possibly defunct, had to be that babe David Bowie married.
Posted by winyahn at 09/24/2009 @ 07:26am
where does that put me, mask?
i'm a free-tradin' (albeit not with today's exploitive framework), earth-cleanin' internationalist.
do i go both ways?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 07:29am
Posted by Happy at 09/23/2009 @ 9:26pm |
"The Inconvenient Truth is that abject poverty today is far, far below what they were and the Left had a big helping hand in reducing global poverty. I applaud you for that in all sincerity."
"Far, far" huh? Nebulous enough to be meaningless and sourceless enough to ignore.
If you look at the World Bank indicators for 2005 (the goodle days), you'll note that most of the countries have more than half their population living beneath the poverty line, subsisting on less than your beer budget.
"What you won't admit, is that you outsourced US jobs by strangling our low-tech industries with all sorts of 'demand that attention be paid to enhancing security, reducing air, water and noise pollution, and so forth'."
Why would we admit something that isn't true, Dippy?
You don't think the bottom line of multinationals, cheaper labor, and lack of regulations (mmmm....smells like Bhopal gas....) and the Clinton/Pug dynamic duo allowing them to repatriate as much profit as they'd like had SOMETHING to do with offsh-(wh)-oring?
"Like you, I like clean air and water "and so forth", but I know there are costs that aren't borne directly by me or you, but by many now-jobless suckers that vote for your party so you can indulge in feeling good about yoursel as an Eco-Star."
Poor dumbass thinks it's zero sum...like people can't get jobs working on energy efficient technologies AND have clean air.
Please do continue to pretend that the actions of the IMF and the global corporate community can be laid at the feet of people who simply have a concerted desire not to be poisoned.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 08:06am
Posted by BigPasture at 09/23/2009 @ 10:39pm |
As usual BigPasture provides an ironic indication as to the nature of anti-Darwinian de-evolution critics as linguistic mush!
He does provide ample illustration of the need for greater education everywhere!
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 08:11am
more oblahma:
Obama on Climate: Is He Even Trying?
"And that number got an airing at the UN yesterday too, from a man willing to speak more straightforwardly than our president. Obama was followed to the podium by Mohammed Nasheed, who also won an election last year, in his case to head the Maldives. (And in his case over an autocrat who had ruled for three decades, and kept Nasheed a political prisoner for five years). If we didn't take tough action to get back to 350 ppm soon, he pointed out, 'We will not live. We will die. Our country will not exist.'"
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/obama-climate-he-even-trying
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 08:13am
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 07:20am |
Let's just say that the member counts of the "international organizations" supported by us lefties definitely post up numbers greater than 20.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 08:13am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 10:52pm |
"What agreements would 'average people' have the authority to negotiate?"
Ask the folks at Republic Windows and Doors in Ohio.
"Of course also, will the average person will feel right at home discussing trade policy with a Sarkozy or Hu Jintao from China on their recent move to internationalize the Yuan and it's effect on global markets?"
No, but they can have a representative with a seat at the table arguing for fair trade on their behalf instead of the closed-door "summit" proceedings the G7/8/20 have engaged in for years.
And they just might be able to school you on the effects of the protectionism you've claimed to support here in the past.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 08:18am
No rational discussion of the G-20 or UN is possible when this sort of UN crap lurks in the background of the neocon mind:
"The United Nations of over a hundred nations centered in New York City, is a Godless, prayerless assemblage. Its only religious emblem, in Babylonian style, is the nude, lewd statue of the sex-god Zeus, counterpart of Tammuz, Adonis and others, in ancient times. He stands, unspeakably modeled, arms outstretched, commanding the great entrance hall of the U.N."
"Now the machinery for a seventh anti-God world government has been set up by the Babylonian Talmudists in the form of the United Nations."
Led by Obama the Anti-Christ (see Rachel Maddow: Why Do 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might Be the Anti-Christ?) who for modern fascists now joins an extensive roster of modern luminaries branded with a "666," including Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin, Pope Benedict XVI, Bill Gates, and Barney the Dinosaur.
Posted by winyahn at 09/24/2009 @ 08:38am
do i go both ways?----Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 07:29am
Your private life is your own businesss....heheh...
No, simply pointing out that everybody has their "favorite" and "oppressive" "international body".
And of course, on another topic, we have the Anarcho-Libertarian Right swinging around the Spectrum so fast, they'll soon bang into the Anarcho-Socialist Left coming from the other direction.
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 09:09am
These summits limit the ability for free trade. The powers that be are dictating trade when the natural market would correct naturaly. This is just another way for the world banks, and over dominant old men of our world to keep control of the world. One nation, one curreny, and wage slavery for all....Down with the fed and centralized global banking system....
Posted by MplsStyme at 09/24/2009 @ 09:14am
This one's for you, Maskalicious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlr5c14elkw
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:10am
"Of course also, will the average person will feel right at home discussing trade policy with a Sarkozy or Hu Jintao from China on their recent move to internationalize the Yuan and it's effect on global markets?"
No, but they can have a representative with a seat at the table arguing for fair trade on their behalf instead of the closed-door "summit" proceedings the G7/8/20 have engaged in for years.
And they just might be able to school you on the effects of the protectionism you've claimed to support here in the past.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 08:18am
If that is your argument (as it seems also for Darla), then abolish govts and go to a state of anarchy. I thought that we in the US believed in representative govt.
Is it anarchy you prefer?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 10:24am
man,
keller plays a mean guitar,
but that singing..
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 10:35am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 10:35am |
Not his best, but he'll never be Michael Hedges in that department, I suppose.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:51am
If that is your argument (as it seems also for Darla), then abolish govts and go to a state of anarchy. I thought that we in the US believed in representative govt. Is it anarchy you prefer? Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 10:24am |
We're not the ones calling for "smaller government" (ak a reduced regulations)...that's your crowd.
We'd love to see fair trade rules enforced that allow all countries to participate in the market without being bent over, but the status quo has other 'innovations' in mind for them, their resources, and the proceeds.
Perhaps you should take up your 'anarchy' argument with the teaparty people.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:55am
And of course, on another topic, we have the Anarcho-Libertarian Right swinging around the Spectrum so fast, they'll soon bang into the Anarcho-Socialist Left coming from the other direction.
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 09:09am
Very good point. Heard this is called "fusion paranoia".
Posted by winyahn at 09/24/2009 @ 11:01am
If that is your argument (as it seems also for Darla), then abolish govts and go to a state of anarchy. I thought that we in the US believed in representative govt. Is it anarchy you prefer? Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 10:24am |
We're not the ones calling for "smaller government" (ak a reduced regulations)...that's your crowd.
We'd love to see fair trade rules enforced that allow all countries to participate in the market without being bent over, but the status quo has other 'innovations' in mind for them, their resources, and the proceeds.
Perhaps you should take up your 'anarchy' argument with the teaparty people.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:55am
You completely miss the point.
The purpose of the G20 summits is for world leader to gather and find ways to come to formal agreements on trade and other issues.
If you are asking for average people or unions etc to attend you are dismissing the role of representative govt and thus calling for anarchy.
It's your comments I'm responding to and you are simply ignoring what you stated.
Either you agree with having representative govt or you don't
And I'm not aware of any libertarian or "Tea Party" people calling for anarchy and the end of representative govt.
Can you cite any to back up your claim?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 11:05am
And I'm not aware of any libertarian or "Tea Party" people calling for anarchy and the end of representative govt. Can you cite any to back up your claim?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 11:05am
I'm sure he'll find a kook with a sign and represent it as the status quo for the Tea Party.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/24/2009 @ 11:31am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 11:05am |
Any involvement of NGOs is anarchy..."for us or against us"...there is no middle (it's been excluded).
Rant on, you crazy diamond.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 12:00pm
Anyone with half a brain should be able to destroy these idiots who pass for world leaders in a debate. The rule is to keep it simple. We don't need any new rules to protect our economic sovereignty, just return traditional American economic practices such as tariffs to grow industries in this country and the use of stimulus for jobs creation, which supports consumer spending that represents 70- 75% of the American market. What we have now is a stimulus for Wall Street, which relies on trickle down economics to support a worldwide economy. Get real!
Posted by pjcasey at 09/24/2009 @ 1:09pm
I'm sure he'll find a kook with a sign and represent it as the status quo for the Tea Party.----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/24/2009 @ 11:31am
What about if we hear a lot of "anti-Census" stuff from a Congresswoman on Fox News....and "9/12 Project" stuff from a talk show host on Fox News...
and a Census worker gets killed on 9/12?
"Co-inky-dink"?
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 1:25pm
man,
keller plays a mean guitar,
but that singing..
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 10:35am
Yeah, the vocals remind me of Michael Franks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_JTxk_IgA4
Posted by BlackFrancis at 09/24/2009 @ 1:30pm
"But the big problem with NAFTA, the WTO and other existing schemes for managing regional and global trade is that they limit the sovereignty of nation states and thus undermine the ability of citizens to democratically define the direction of their national economies."
Thank you for pointing this out, John. One of the (many) logical disconnects with current "conservatives" is their love affair with these agreements, and their refusal to support the International Criminal Court because of its threat to our "sovereignity". NAFTA and the WTO create an uneven playing field between capital and labor which lines their pockets and those of their cronies. The ICC, on the other hand, would put the likes of Kissinger and Rumsfeldt where they belong - behind bars, and discourage the kind of war mongering these two specialized in.
I find it interesting that Sarkozy, considered a conservative in Europe, is teaming with Stiglitz on this issue.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/24/2009 @ 1:44pm
The superintendent of a New Jersey school where students were videotaped being taught to sing the praises of President Obama issued a statement Thursday saying the taping was unauthorized, but failed to address whether the the lesson -- taught durnig Black History Month -- was approved.
A YouTube video shows nearly 20 young children being led in a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again."
Students at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., were "singing a song about President Obama" in February "to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country," said Burlington Township Superintendent Christopher M. Manno. "The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized."
One song quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
Another lyric touts a fair-pay bill Obama signed in January: "He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay."
The author of the songs is unknown, but a woman -- possibly a teacher -- can be heard in the beginning of the video correcting and helping a student who has forgotten the words. Another woman, the person holding the camera, cheers the students on: "All right," she says. "I like that."
."Alteredbeat" originally posted the video Sept. 6, two days before Obama made an address to the nation's schoolchildren in which he praised the American education system as the best in the world and urged students to stay in school.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 1:52pm
"At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world," Obama said.
Lenin and Marx are busting with pride in hell
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 1:52pm
Song 1: Mm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand To make this country strong again Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today Equal work means equal pay Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white All are equal in his sight Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama
Yes! Mmm, mmm, mm Barack Hussein Obama
Song 2: Hello, Mr. President we honor you today! For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one! The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you! And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray!
--------
I am really worried about the national anthem's replacement coming to a school near you soon and very soon!!! Iguess the new Obamantion and Demoncrat Reich is getting too real for me!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 1:54pm
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 1:52pm
More decontextualization from our conservative friends. Hannah Arendt, take note: Totalitarian thought is alive and well in the good old USA.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 09/24/2009 @ 1:57pm
Oh yeah, the First song is sung to the tune of "Jesus Loves the Little Children" very appropriate for the Magic Negro Messiah of the Left!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 2:30pm
Here's 100% proof that Blue States' business IQ has atrophied!
September 23, 2009
2010 State Business Tax Climate Index
The Tax Foundation has published its 2010 State Business Tax Climate Index, which ranks the fifty states according to five indices: corporate tax, individual income tax, sales tax, unemployment insurance tax, and property tax. Here are the ten states with the......worst business tax climates:
41 Vermont
42 Wisconsin
43 Minnesota
44 Rhode Island
45 Maryland
46 New Hampshire
47 Ohio
48 California
49 New York
50 New Jersey
Interestingly, all ten of the states with the worst business tax climates voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, and five of the ten states with the best business tax climates voted for John McCain (South Dakota #1, Wyoming (#2), Alaska (#3), Montana (#6), and Utah (#10)).....
Posted by Happy at 09/24/2009 @ 2:31pm
Happy should have been a changey hopey supporter!!!
Taxpayers may lose money on the $700 billion bailout engineered by the Treasury Department of the Bush and Obama administrations.
So says Neil Barofsky, inspector general of the bailout, formally known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
In testimony prepared for the Senate Banking Committee Thursday, Barofsky says the Treasury Department has ignored suggestions to improve the program's transparency. And he says Treasury has never solved the vexing problem of disposing with the toxic assets that remain on banks' balance sheets.
"While several TARP recipients have repaid funds for what has widely been reported as a 17 percent profit, it is extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will see a full return on its TARP investment," Barofsky said in the remarks, as cited by The Wall Street Journal.
The Treasury's attempt to use government aid to spark bank loans hasn't worked, he says. Lending has actually dropped, despite the government's injection of billions of dollars into the banking system.
To be sure, he acknowledges that lending would have plunged even more precipitously if the TARP program hadn't been enacted.
Barofsky has clashed repeatedly with the Treasury over the program's transparency.
"TARP largely remains a program in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested," Barofsky said.
While U.S. taxpayers may not make out so well in the financial buyout, some other investors have profited handsomely. Warren Buffett, for instance, has earned paper profit of $3 billion, or 60 percent, on the $5 billion investment he made in Goldman Sachs a year ago.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 2:38pm
And Singapore's sovereign wealth fund Government of Singapore Investment Corp. (GIC) announced this week that it gained a $1.6 billion profit by selling about half of its holdings in Citigroup.
Boy it sure does pay to be one of the biggest contributors and supporters of the Obamanation and the Demoncrats! Now You can pay for it!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 2:39pm
Iguess the new Obamantion and Demoncrat Reich is getting too real for me!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 1:54pm
I would be really, really sad if you moved to a different country....but I'm pretty sure I could deal with the "sadness". :)
Posted by BlackFrancis at 09/24/2009 @ 2:46pm
Any involvement of NGOs is anarchy..."for us or against us"...there is no middle (it's been excluded).
Rant on, you crazy diamond.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 12:00pm
I'll take that as a non response.
You just don't want to admit that you no longer believe in representative govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 2:47pm
How did that go, oh yeah, the right lies about Obamanaions connection to marxist terrorists like Ayers?
"Terrorist bomber William Ayers helped Barack Obama write his 1995 book "Dreams From My Father," the best-selling author of a new book about Obama and his wife disclosed.
Christopher Andersen, author of "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show on Tuesday. Hannity referred to a passage in Andersen's book and said:
"Bill Ayers helped him with his book, and you actually pick up -- you found the literary devices and themes bear a jarring similarity to Ayers' own writings."
Andersen said: "That's true. And they were good friends. And during the campaign, of course..."
Hannity: "They were good friends."
Andersen: "Yes, of course, they were."
Hannity: "So he denied it."
Andersen: "It was kind of -- yes, he did. It was like a literary cabal there that was interesting in Chicago. They were all giving each other quotes, the blurbs to promote their respective books."
Hannity later told Andersen that Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers. "He lied to the American people."
Andersen responded: "During that campaign I think he was doing some backpedaling, I'll be honest. And I think that Michelle probably recommended that he not emphasize their relationship with Ayers."
Andersen also writes in his book that Michelle Obama convinced her reluctant husband to adopt the "Yes We Can" slogan.
Andersen has written best-selling books about the Kennedys, the Bushes and other notables, including "Jack and Jackie: Portrait of an American Marriage" and "The Day Diana Died." "
Well.. somebody was busy LIEING named B. Hussein Obama!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 3:08pm
"At the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world," Obama said.
Lenin and Marx are busting with pride in hell
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 1:52pm
Must be talkng about a private school....because the public system with its structure..even with the singing of the Obama song instead of Pledge of Alegience, or with the new dvd being shown "How the country works"...
has no chance of acheiving anything other than what they have produced for years....
....indoctrinated kids prepared for nothing in the real world other than campaigning for Obama types or working for Acorn.
Otherwise not much of a future there.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/24/2009 @ 3:47pm
Do the posts here often talk about the government as the problem without mentioning that the problem is that they've been bought off by too big to fail corps? Or mentioning the lobbyists have been the ones running the government? This is the kind of government you get in the culture of private contracting for services - politicians start thinking about all the money they can make on the side, kickbacks, etc.
Posted by TheAfterParty at 09/24/2009 @ 4:14pm
Posted by TheAfterParty at 09/24/2009 @ 4:14pm
you aren't looking high enough.
corporations and their lobbyists do not run the government, although they are obvious influencers. the federal reserve runs the show. The banking cartel represented by the fed loans the fiat currency to the business that are too big to fail. The "failure", of course is not the loss of jobs, etc, it is the inability of these companies to continue payments to the banks.
so, the way it works is through the federal reserve mechanism, where the burden falls on the american taxpayer, by law.
Remember. Profit is privatized. risk is socialized. Your Congress at work.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/24/2009 @ 4:43pm
You know little Pasture I have had enough of your bullshit. your ranting and raving and dooms daying . Here's why I've had it. I was at a Bloomington ,Minnesota Wells Fargo yesterday afternoon. I bent over and picked up a piece of the "rights" propaganda off of the ground. It is the Obama "white face black encircled eyes" Socialism it's not a joke sticker. Let me tell you something there is a huge difference when you here about something and then you hold it in your hand. You righty's ,Jimmy Carter was spot on. He sees a lot of things from his Georgia perch. Happy you are another raciost pig. I'm tired of you and your tax cut B.S. and your smugness. Why don't you and l P go to the Annie Coulter line where you can fit right in. You and your ilk should feel shame. Go back to where you belong, a spot in the cast of idiots that can't spell marxism much less understand what it is.
Posted by whatozz at 09/24/2009 @ 4:58pm
Happy you are another raciost pig.
Posted by whatozz at 09/24/2009 @ 4:58pm
Don't you mean `graciost' pig?....I'm like your Messiah, paint me whatever you want, but just be sure it's your worst nightmare.....imagine even that I am the Grand Duke.....I eat little chocolate kids for breakfast, nice plump Hispanias for lunch and dumb white Libs for dinner........LOL!
Posted by Happy at 09/24/2009 @ 5:06pm
Happy should have been a changey hopey supporter!!!
.....While U.S. taxpayers may not make out so well in the financial buyout, some other investors have profited handsomely. Warren Buffett, for instance, has earned paper profit of $3 billion, or 60 percent, on the $5 billion investment he made in Goldman Sachs a year ago.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 2:38pm
And Singapore's sovereign wealth fund Government of Singapore Investment Corp. (GIC) announced this week that it gained a $1.6 billion profit by selling about half of its holdings in Citigroup.
Boy it sure does pay to be one of the biggest contributors and supporters of the Obamanation and the Demoncrats! Now You can pay for it!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 2:39pm
NOW, you know how smart I was/am.....making money off of the bailouts WITHOUT even contributing any money to Mr. Hopey....
Magic is the Real McCoy of _____ (fill in the blank)!
Posted by Happy at 09/24/2009 @ 5:11pm
whatozz,
What's really bothering you? Surely it can't be the parody of a President, as you'd be equally outraged at the poster art employed protesting Bush. But you weren't, were you?
Is it because you are a collectivist and losing patience? Not very Fabian of you.
I think your problem is you don't really understand the forces at work, so you lash out and accuse any opposition as being racist and full of BS, just like your masters have taught you.
Oh, and since you are an expert on marxism, and I assume its defender, can you please identify the one marxist nation on earth that has an immigration problem? That should be easy for you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:13pm
I'm sure he'll find a kook with a sign and represent it as the status quo for the Tea Party.----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/24/2009 @ 11:31am
What about if we hear a lot of "anti-Census" stuff from a Congresswoman on Fox News....and "9/12 Project" stuff from a talk show host on Fox News...
and a Census worker gets killed on 9/12?
"Co-inky-dink"?
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2009 @ 1:25pm
I don't know. Wasn't a pro-lifer who was holding a sign supporting lfe, gunned down in cold blood just recently. You make my point for me. There are kooks everywhere out there looking for their fifteen minutes of fame.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:15pm
First off Droopy you are one great guy. I think it is great you moved from Florida to Texas and are now close to Tom Delay. Freih I don't know of a Marxist country in the world do you. Since I am sure you have studied this subject you can enlighten me. What masters are you talking about,the masters of the forces at work. I will tell you something,political theory is read ,it is taught, and it is learned. I have my poli sci degree from many years ago. I practiced working with people for many years as a management professional. I am angry because of what our society,our system,our quality of discourse has become and then I get a jackass that doesn't know squat asking me if I'm a Communist because I'm disgusted about an overtly racist picture. GWB got plenty of shots from the left . Were a few way overboard,they certainly were. Was he though" put in black face with white rimmed eyes and a green mouth". No, he was not, there was no racial element. I am saying blast away but give the racial crap a rest for the good of us all.
Posted by whatozz at 09/24/2009 @ 5:40pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 2:47pm |
"I'll take that as a non response."
You've every right to be wrong.
"You just don't want to admit that you no longer believe in representative govt."
I'll make sure to put words that you don't believe in your mouth when it's convenient.
Why can't I believe in representative government that listens to concerned parties when important matters like trade are discussed?
For someone who is bent out of shape about being told when to buy healthcare, you sure argue for blind obedience when it comes to other people's well-being.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:53pm
There are kooks everywhere out there looking for their fifteen minutes of fame. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:15pm |
...but enough about Michele Bachmann.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:54pm
Darladoon,
If you don't already live there, you ought to move to Vermont!
They have the town hall meetings there, a lot of town business is done through those general meetings where anybody can show up and participate.
That seems to be the way you think the world should work. "The People" should be participating in the G-20, according to you. (paraphrased into my words of what you seem to think).
That is impossible, and you don't seem to know it, but at least if you lived in Vermont and participated in your local town meeting then you would work off some of your frustration.
Vermont is a lib state anyway, maybe the most lib state in the country, so you would probably be happier there.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/24/2009 @ 5:56pm
Lenin and Marx are busting with pride in hell Posted by BigPasture at 09/24/2009 @ 1:52pm |
Oh go burn a book or something, zealot.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:58pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/24/2009 @ 5:56pm |
Burrrrrrrrlington.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:59pm
Droop- Correction-You are a racist pig that is proud of it . You aren't smart enough to out think a liberal much less eat im.
Posted by whatozz at 09/24/2009 @ 6:08pm
"You just don't want to admit that you no longer believe in representative govt."
I'll make sure to put words that you don't believe in your mouth when it's convenient.
Why can't I believe in representative government that listens to concerned parties when important matters like trade are discussed?
For someone who is bent out of shape about being told when to buy healthcare, you sure argue for blind obedience when it comes to other people's well-being.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:53pm
No, I believe in the constitution.
the constitution says that treaties are negotiated by the executive branch of the US. Do you think that we should change the constitution and add along with citizen counsel?
Why elect a president if you don't want he/she to do their job?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 6:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 6:25pm |
Why is receiving counsel from NGOs a corruption of constitutional duties to represent the US in international affairs?
You act like I'm asking for Salvadorian shade coffee growers to "get a vote in our treaty negotiations", but that's a misstatement of my position.
I argue that well-informed treaty negotiation is more likely to provide benefit to the country over the long term.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 6:58pm
Why is receiving counsel from NGOs a corruption of constitutional duties to represent the US in international affairs?
You act like I'm asking for Salvadorian shade coffee growers to "get a vote in our treaty negotiations", but that's a misstatement of my position.
I argue that well-informed treaty negotiation is more likely to provide benefit to the country over the long term.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 6:58pm
So have Obama receive counsel from NGO's or whomever you desire prior to the meeting. But it's ridiculous to suggest that they sit at the negotiating table.
Again, you dismiss representative govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:07pm
In the past we made our foreign policy decisions based upon multi national corporations interests. See Honduras and United Fruit Brands. We and other sovereign nations made decisions with the help of the Catholic Church. The Church at one time was the largest land owner in all of South America. So I think our historian should bone up on old negotiations.
Posted by whatozz at 09/24/2009 @ 7:10pm
In the past we made our foreign policy decisions based upon multi national corporations interests. See Honduras and United Fruit Brands. We and other sovereign nations made decisions with the help of the Catholic Church. The Church at one time was the largest land owner in all of South America. So I think our historian should bone up on old negotiations.
Posted by whatozz at 09/24/2009 @ 7:10pm
What both of you are conflating is the right to advise and offer opinion prior to formal negotiations, with the actual negotiations.
And who decides which NGO or "average Person" as the argument started, gets to sit at the table over the desire of someone else to sit there?
When a union and a grocery company negotiate a new contract, should the consumers have an equal standing at the bargaining table? should the rank and file members all sit there also?
No matter how you both try to frame it, you are arguing against representative govt.
You are both anarchists
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:23pm
Posted by snowball777 at 09/24/2009 @ 10:51am
michael hedges is very boring.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 7:55pm
Michael Franks.
Posted by BlackFrancis at 09/24/2009 @ 1:30pm
ewwwww.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 7:56pm
representative govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:23pm
if only.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 8:00pm
No you are wrong . I was simply stating facts. You said that you have a "minor" in Asian Studies. One of my "minors" was Latin American Studies . I just stated what happened in the 40's and 50's in Honduras. United Fruit essentially ran that country. I stated another fact about the Catholic Church. That is why the landed aristocracy has run South American governments with some exceptions for 200 years. Modern day South America is bucking the trend. This has nothing top do with anarchy. That is the current occupation of the right wing of the Republican party. I have a great example of that right next to me at the computer. But it is not racist.Oh no!
Posted by whatozz at 09/24/2009 @ 8:02pm
Bank of America reports recent more active demand in many lines of business, though construction and automotive still lag; "while the increase in the volume of trade is of moderate proportions the improvement has been sufficient to be reflected in a more optimistic business sentiment and in greater confidence in the general economic situation." Criticizes popular tendency to go to extremes of optimism and pessimism as obstacle to recovery, calls for "even balance, and patience."
••
Royal Bank of Canada on commodities: "Judging by the course of events in other apparently similar cycles of the past, and giving due weight to the effect of the present worldwide policy of cheap money, it is reasonable to suppose that the present average of prices has about reached the bottom of the cyclical movement."
WSJ, SEPTEMBER 23, 1930....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 9:45pm
This questions begs to be asked. Where are the benefits of GWB's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? The answer is,in their pockets. It is time for all Americans to get on a level playing field. Roll back the tax cuts, expose the toxic assets of the Big banks,and rein in the excessive profits of the insurance cartel. This would take courage and determination. It would mean standing up for" regular"Americans. Hey Mr. President, enough of the speeches, I want to believe in the "change"you talked about in the campaign. Let's start working today to facilitate "Change in America".
Posted by whatozz at 09/25/2009 @ 05:25am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/24/2009 @ 5:15pm
Dunno...keep hearing that story, but never get a link to the actual report. I think a list of "pro-life" violence tends to outweigh a list of "pro-choice" violence though.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 07:55am
michael hedges is very boring. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/24/2009 @ 7:55pm |
You must have listened to the "new age" (rhymes with sewage) stuff...and he died in a car crash in the 90s so it's "was boring".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNMCeQorOSA
And the great cover choices...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhzrXtMxDV4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwzrlOrmkKw
...to each their own. Sorry it wasn't your cup, Frosty.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 08:26am
No matter how you both try to frame it, you are arguing against representative govt. You are both anarchists Posted by antisocialist at 09/24/2009 @ 7:23pm |
You've officially wandered into looney land. Your false accusations are as tiresome as is your apparent lack of basic reasoning skills.
I want a representative government that lives up to its name, nothing more.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 08:36am
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 08:36am
A element of Larry you need to keep in mind...he's a "Presidential authoritarian". Believes in investing as much as possible, or more, in the Executive than anything else...even his self-proclaimed love of "strict Constructionalism" on the US Constitution....i.e. his support of the War Powers Act.
He likes "a Leader" above all.
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 10:10am
I want a representative government that lives up to its name, nothing more.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 08:36am
When you state that people other than those elected by us to negotiate trade agreements and treaties sit at the negotiating table you are advocating the dismissal of representative govt and our constitutional process.
If you really want representative govt, why do you want to destroy it?
Do you understand what representative govt actually means?
We elect those who we believe represent the direction we want the country to be taken. That's what election campaigns are about. Candidates attempt to convince us which one has the views that most align with ours and who's judgment we believe makes them capable of handling that responsibility.
We are not a direct (or pure) democracy which is what you and the rest of the far left are advocating. We are a constitutional republic.
The danger of direct democracy and the conclusion for the US to be republic instead, was addressed by Madison in Federalist #10
<From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property;>
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 10:47am
I have read about executive power and it seems each President likes to expand upon that power. That is super if you were GWB's Dick's and Karl's pal. I don't think anyone posting here falls into that category. I think that Santi has a different opinion on our government affecting other countries internal affairs. Just for clarification purposes,did an anarchist assassinate Franz Ferdinand? How does that equate with what I said. Get your philosophies and thoughts straight,that was an insult.
Posted by whatozz at 09/25/2009 @ 10:56am
Posted by whatozz at 09/25/2009 @ 10:56am
Read my comments Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 10:47am
and read Federalist 10 and perhaps you will understand what I'm saying.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:07am
I think it was a much simpler time to have a political debate" then" than it is now. A vast majority of the people involved wanted the same thing. What I stated goes back to what people of the colonial time period wanted to stop. No more external meddling and a vast lessening of the "Churches power in affairs of state". I think my remarks on Central and South American politics albeit brief were accurate and to the point. There is nothing to suggest that is the viewpoint of an anarchist.
Posted by whatozz at 09/25/2009 @ 11:19am
Larry's love of Federalist #10 is ..."interesting" given it says-
"A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy, but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source"
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
And he basically is a part of a religious sect that has degenerated into a political faction!
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 11:23am
'so, i say, people should try and force their way in, disrupt the talks, and raise hell.' -- darladoon
'If this balloon of fear were not bad enough, it's supplemented by repeated calls to "retake" America, to "regain" a golden past, to "revolt" against the kleptocracy.' -- The Nation -- Patricia J. Williams -- 12 October, 2009 -- http://www. thenation.com/doc/ 20091012/williams
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2009 @ 11:23am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2009 @ 11:23am
So you're saying the Town Hallers are "the same as" Darla?
Interesting, if very unusual analogy coming from a right-winger like you, HL!??!?!??
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 11:25am
And he basically is a part of a religious sect that has degenerated into a political faction!
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 11:23am
Time changes nothing with some people. Their obsessions with proclaiming what other people think or believe are really quite amazing.
<Uh, HAPP...isn't that a nearly perfect description of... Christianity???
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 11:19am
Nope. the purpose of Christianity is not to change the world.
It is to restore mankind to a relationship with G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 12:26pm
Really? So there is NO material, Earthly improvement to a person's life if they turn to Christ? None.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:27pm
Really? So there is NO material, Earthly improvement to a person's life if they turn to Christ? None.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2009 @ 1:27pm
That's not what I said. Any earthly improvement is a secondary benefit and not the purpose of becoming a Christian.
If you never receive any earthly improvement at all, it does change or invalidate your relationship with G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/28/2009 @ 1:51pm>
thenation.com/blogs/actnow/438954/the_case_for_nuclear_abolition
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:43am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 10:47am |
"When you state that people other than those elected by us to negotiate trade agreements and treaties sit at the negotiating table you are advocating the dismissal of representative govt and our constitutional process."
I'm not advocating that anyone represent the US' interests in the G20 meetings.
I'm arguing that the G20 meeting should be the G192+.
"If you really want representative govt, why do you want to destroy it?"
I don't. That's your conjecture, fool.
And the Federalists were simply afraid of hordes of French Catholics muscling in on their action.
Their xenophobic descendents insist on depriving Americans of the right to vote with bogus voter roll purging and shameful redistricting to this day.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 11:47am
I'm not advocating that anyone represent the US' interests in the G20 meetings.
I'm arguing that the G20 meeting should be the G192+.
"If you really want representative govt, why do you want to destroy it?"
I don't. That's your conjecture, fool.
Their xenophobic descendents insist on depriving Americans of the right to vote with bogus voter roll purging and shameful redistricting to this day.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 11:47am
you are degenerating into just another far left kook with comments like these.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:56am
Time changes nothing with some people. Their obsessions with proclaiming what other people think or believe are really quite amazing. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:43am |
If you really want representative govt, why do you want to destroy it? Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 10:47am |
Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 11:59am
Time changes nothing with some people. Their obsessions with proclaiming what other people think or believe are really quite amazing. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:43am |
If you really want representative govt, why do you want to destroy it? Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 10:47am |
Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 11:59am
I'd be more than happy to retract and/or apologize if you simply stated that you uphold the constitutional authority given to the executive branch and not also any citizen to negotiate trade agreements and treaties.
It's pretty simple Snowball; but up to this point, you haven't been able to bring yourself to acknowledge that.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 11:43am
Larry, let's re-"read Federalist 10 and perhaps you will understand what I am saying"....
"A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy, but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source"
Now, are you going to state that your religious sectarian view on say the issue of....our foreign policy as it concerns...ISRAEL...is not a "political faction"?
and that despite Federalist 10, we should NOT make sure it remains "dispersed" and "secure our national councils against any danger from that source"????
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 12:54pm
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2009 @ 12:54pm
Of course I do.
Do we have a variety of sects in this country? Yes
Is there ANY one religious sect that is a political faction? No
Name the religious denomination that is a political faction. I think Alexis de Tocqueville in his "Democracy in America" stated the relationship well.
<The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God.... Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.
In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people.... Christianity, therefore reigns without obstacle, by universal consent; the consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of the moral world is fixed and determinate..
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts-the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. They brought with them...a form of Christianity, which I cannot better describe, than by styling it a democratic and republican religion... .From the earliest settlement of the emigrants, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved.>
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:41pm
'As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.' -- Christopher Hitchens, from his book 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/25/2009 @ 1:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 12:18pm |
"I'd be more than happy to retract and/or apologize if you simply stated that you uphold the constitutional authority given to the executive branch and not also any citizen to negotiate trade agreements and treaties."
So much for the "advice and consent" of the US Senate...thanks Teddy Ruse-veldt; sole-executive agreement is old langage for "the decider".
Any disagreement with the language in Article 2 Section 2 on my part is completely within the confines of your deranged excuse for a mind.
"It's pretty simple Snowball; but up to this point, you haven't been able to bring yourself to acknowledge that."
Actually, it's not simple at all...depending on whether the treaty requires new domestic law, has sunset provisions, would be binding on future presidents, etc ad nauseum.
And I'd be more than happy to disbelieve the rumors about you and little boys, if you could provide even a shred of proof that you aren't, in fact, molesting them.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/25/2009 @ 4:10pm
ANY one religious sect that is a political faction? No Name the religious denomination that is a political faction. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:41pm |
LDS.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 05:28am
When did we get representative government?
I seem to recall only having a choice between insane mccain and obama the liar.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/26/2009 @ 08:01am
Name the religious denomination that is a political faction. Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:41pm |
LDS.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 05:28am
Two things about your remark.
1. LDS is not a political faction as defined by Madison in Federalist #10.
2. They are not a Christian organization.
They are on record in fact that they worhsip a different Jesus.
<In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.>
Nor the same G-d.
Joseph Smith preached:
<God himself, was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 305)>
For them, Satan is our "brother"
Apostle George Q. Cannon preached that Christ, Satan and all the mortals born on this earth are actually brothers and sisters from a pre-earth life:
<We are here to be tested and tried. There is a war between Satan and God. We are brethren and sisters of Satan as well as of Jesus. It may be startling doctrine to many to say this; but Satan is our brother. Jesus is our brother. We are the children of God. God begot us in the spirit in the eternal worlds. (Apostle George Q. Cannon, March 11th, 1894, Collected Discourses)>
Other than using the names and some terms (but with different meaning, they have nothing in common with Christianity
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:23am
"<The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God.... Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same."
"In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people.... Christianity, therefore reigns without obstacle, by universal consent; "
"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other..."
Posted by antisocialist at 09/25/2009 @ 1:41pm |
Do you have eyes? Are you actually buying any of that drivel? Or are you just in wishful agreement with it?
You know of no Americans who don't share your faith in jesus? Or you choose to ignore/degenerate them?
If you agree with the last quote, then you have finally located the cause of your non-cognitivism. I regularly do the "impossible", as do millions of others.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/26/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:23am |
"1. LDS is not a political faction as defined by Madison in Federalist #10."
<a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.>
Disagree as your predilections require, but their anti-gay stance fits that bill rather well, from where I sit.
They're politically motivated by religious belief to the detriment of their neighbors; just the kind of silliness that Madison warned against.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 11:32am
"1. LDS is not a political faction as defined by Madison in Federalist #10."
<a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.>
Disagree as your predilections require, but their anti-gay stance fits that bill rather well, from where I sit.
They're politically motivated by religious belief to the detriment of their neighbors; just the kind of silliness that Madison warned against.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 11:32am
Marriage is not a constitutional right. Neither is the behavior of homosexuality. Nor is the behavior of heterosexuality.
You have a right to freedom of speech and movement, the right to assembly, speech, to be secure in your persons and property, the right to bear arms, the right to petition govt (which includes people of faith), to be protected against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures without a warrant, the right to equality under our judicial system, and a few more.
But your sexual practices other than rape or with minors are not the business of govt, and who you marry or cohabit with is the providence of the states, not the federal govt.
And on a personal note; there is no permanent and aggregate interest of the community served by encouraging the perversion of homosexuality.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 1:19pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 1:19pm |
There's a difference between tolerance and encouragement in my world, and the lack of homophobically motivated violence in my neighborhood is appreciated by more than just my gay friends.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 2:02pm